Standing Committee G

[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Clause 36 - Anti-social behaviour orders

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
clause 36, page 28, line 16, at end insert 
 'or are otherwise connected with the same antisocial problem in the same area.'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 64, in 
clause 36, page 28, line 25, at end insert 
 'or are otherwise connected with the same antisocial problem in the same area.'.

Nick Hawkins: Good morning, Mr. Cran, on this bright morning. I welcome you back to the Chair and other members of the Committee. I can deal with the amendments quite briefly. As the Minister and others will realise, they would have the same effect. Again, we are genuinely attempting to improve the Bill by making it more flexible. The Bill uses the words
''that the person's anti-social acts are material in relation to the principal proceedings'',
 which is too restrictive. We hope that the Minister will understand the spirit of the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I often say, we do not suggest for a moment that our wording is necessarily perfect, but I am sure that the Minister can understand what we are getting at. 
 It would be helpful if courts could consider the wider picture. If someone is involved in an antisocial behaviour problem, there should not be the restriction of their antisocial acts having to be material in relation to the principal proceedings. I need take up no more of the Committee's time. We shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I hope that, even if he cannot accept the precise wording of the amendments, he will say that he will keep the matter under review and may introduce something that achieves the same objective.

Bob Ainsworth: I understand what Opposition Members seek to achieve, but their proposal would not be helpful. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman that that is right. The amendments would open up the county courts to further antisocial behaviour applications even when the antisocial behaviour of the person in question was not directly related to the principal proceedings in the court. That would not achieve the objective of making it simpler to get antisocial behaviour orders to provide quicker protection for those suffering from antisocial
 behaviour. Further evidence and witnesses would be necessary, as the antisocial behaviour would be unrelated to the evidence in the principal proceedings. That could slow down the proceedings and the protections that they offer. The appropriate forum for unrelated applications is a magistrates court.
 When the evidence of a person's antisocial behaviour is directly relevant to proceedings in a county court, the Government's proposal will enable that court to join the person to the proceedings, so that an order may be made against them. That will be extremely useful when, for example, a tenant is being evicted due to the antisocial behaviour of a family member or friend. It removes the need for the same evidence to be presented in different courts. 
 Under the amendments, we might deal not with the antisocial behaviour directly relating to the relevant premises, but with antisocial behaviour that was occurring around the corner. That would not be helpful. In those circumstances, a separate order should be sought. That said, I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, because there are pockets of antisocial behaviour that go well beyond individual premises in respect of which proceedings may be taken in the county court.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which he is approaching the amendments. I understand his point, but will he undertake to talk to those at the sharp end, who will have to deal with ASBO proceedings and conduct cases, as they have been doing under the existing law, and ask them whether they are worried that the Bill's wording is too restrictive? If he undertakes to do that, I shall happily withdraw the amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: I am happy to do that, but what the hon. Gentleman proposes is wide of the specific proceedings that will be dealt with in the county court, and it would in any case not be helpful.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister. He realises that it is not our intention to make the provision more complex or difficult. We were trying to make it more flexible. He said that he will consult further with those who are at the sharp end to see whether the wording of new subsections (3A)(b) and (3C) can be improved. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I repeat something that I have said before about antisocial behaviour orders and I am slightly heartened that the National Association of Probation Officers makes the same point. The association suggests that ASBOs should always be accompanied by a further requirement or have attached to them something that could change behaviour. At the moment, the ASBO is pure enforcement.
 The clause makes a sensible extension to existing legislation by including housing action trusts, which was an obvious omission. I have always expressed 
 concern about the fact that once outside agencies, such as the local authority and the police, are brought in, there is not the same incentive to ensure that other measures have been tried first. Being able to include accompanying measures would allow the nature of the physical environment and other factors to be considered. 
 The clause extends the scope of the ASBO. I accept that that is necessary at the end of the line, but I have always been concerned that it is pure enforcement, particularly when it is extended to other agencies. I ask the Minister to consider at least issuing guidance on having something alongside the ASBO to change behaviour.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome you, Mr. Cran, to the Chair on this sunny morning.
 When antisocial behaviour orders were introduced, I thought how wonderful it was to have found a solution to the problem that so many people were experiencing in our towns and cities. However, as the weeks went by, cases were still being brought to my attention from all parts of my constituency—villages, towns and town centres. I would contact the police, highlighting the concerns of residents and detailing the harassment and antisocial behaviour that my constituents had experienced. Time and again, however, the police did not follow up my concerns for a variety of reasons, including the complexity of the law. I began to feel dismayed, despite thinking that ASBOs would be a solution to the antisocial behaviour from which people were suffering. It became clear that we needed to make ASBOs simpler. 
 We are now going the right way. Having lobbied the Humberside police for some time about antisocial behaviour, I am gratified that they have started issuing ASBOs. One was reported in the Scunthorpe Evening Telegraph this week under the headline, ''Street ban to keep the peace''. That was the first order to have been issued in the town and only the third in north Lincolnshire; yet week in, week out, cases are being brought to my attention in which an ASBO would be appropriate. 
 That first ASBO covered a variety of streets in Scunthorpe. The man's targets were women and children but, as the police said, he seemed to know how to stop short of being criminal. He would turn up at schools and harass his intended victims' children. I am glad that the order has been used and I hope that the police will use the powers a lot more. 
 Another case was brought to my attention involving someone in Barcroft street in Cleethorpes. We cannot seem to get antisocial behaviour orders against the perpetrators in this case, but this woman has listed many examples of antisocial behaviour. The latest involved people running down the street with baseball bats smashing windows. That is criminal. Something needs to be done about these neighbours from hell, yet nothing is being done. I hope that the police and other authorities start to pull their finger out and use the powers and sanctions that will be available to them. 
 It is disheartening to speak to people whose lives have been made a misery by antisocial behaviour, to tell them about the sanctions that exist, to take it up with the police and then to find out that nothing has happened. They blame politicians. We are the ones who take the responsibility. That is not acceptable. This Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and I are visiting our local police to discuss many aspects of the Bill in detail. We will express our concerns and say that we hope that they will do something now. Having welcomed antisocial behaviour orders when they were first introduced, we feel that the police have not used those powers enough. I welcome the clause. I hope that the chief constable of Humberside pays attention to what we have been saying.

Nick Hawkins: I was not going to speak in the stand part debate, but the speech by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has provoked me to make a brief contribution. It is perhaps unwise for hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, to make speeches that are in effect a direct attack on the police. The hon. Lady said that she felt that it was unfair when her constituents blamed politicians. However, she has been part of a Government who have introduced an incredibly complex and bureaucratic system, which we repeatedly pointed out at the time would not be used. Her constituents are right to say that politicians did not get it right. That is particularly true when some Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)—

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will in a moment—who is about to speak, joined me in debates when ASBOs were first introduced in saying that the authorities in Nottinghamshire, like those in Surrey, found the system so complex and that it was taking so long to get anyone before the courts that they were giving up in despair. I recognise that the Government, under huge pressure from us, have gradually been improving ASBOs. If the Government had listened to us in the first place, they would never have introduced a system that was so complex and bureaucratic. Instead, the hon. Lady's local police would have a system that they could use.

Shona McIsaac: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has made this party political, because the essential factor here is the concerns of our constituents. There may be many reasons why ASBOs are not being used. It may be complexity or it may be unwillingness. But what on earth did his Government do for 18 years to deal with the antisocial behaviour that our constituents were experiencing? I will answer that question for him. It was a big fat zero.

James Cran: Order. This is developing into a second speech.

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, we did a great deal. Before the hon. Lady came into this House, I was one of those involved in the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The present Government have built upon that Act's provisions,
 and the police and local authorities regard it as one of the most effective criminal justice measures.
 I remind the hon. Lady that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was Home Secretary, the crime rate began to decline for the first time since the Second World War because of our very tough measures. In my first Parliament, from 1992 to 1997, our tough law and order measures started to reverse a trend that had continued through successive Governments since the war. I have made my point, and I wish to hear what the hon. Member for Gedling has to say on the matter.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I have a long involvement in this area. I am pleased to say that we in the Doncaster area were one of the first areas in the country to use antisocial behaviour orders. The people whom I and other colleagues represent finally saw the opportunity to deal with harassment, intimidation, vandalism and violence. It was an opportunity for police to use powers that had previously been denied to them. We politicians can sit here and create the framework, the words on the paper and the guidelines but, ultimately, in terms of implementation, what is important is how those guidelines are received on the ground and how they are interpreted and used to best effect by local agencies.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend's constituency neighbours my own. Would she comment on the fact that in Humberside, police have issued very few antisocial behaviour orders, while police in her area have issued many more?

Caroline Flint: It is important that we learn from best practice. It would be sad if the community in one area were denied the experience of best practice in other areas. We are all human. In various parts of the country, depending on who is in charge—and their attitude to issues and problems—a different approach might be taken. The important point is whether an approach works. The saddest situation is when something works in one part of the country and, for all sorts of reasons, people do not look at that and customise it to their area. I do not believe in reinventing the wheel.
 One of the functions of a Government is to identify problems. There is no doubt that we are all agreed that antisocial behaviour is a huge problem that our constituents face every day. It is something that, under previous Governments, the law has been unable to address. The powers that were given to the police in the past have proved insufficient. That is why it is at the forefront of our minds today. The Government must recognise the problem, put law into action and encourage innovation in dealing with the issue. At the same time, a good Government and good legislators will review what has been done, identify gaps and see where improvements can be made. That is why we are here today. There is no point in rerunning old arguments about whether ASBOs work. In some parts of the country, they have worked; in others, they have not. We must address how we can make them work better and more effectively.

Annette Brooke: I agree about spreading best practice. I wonder whether the hon. Lady will agree with me that in some places, where there have not been many ASBOs, good use has been made of acceptable behaviour contracts. Those contracts are a by-product of ASBOs, but very productive as a voluntary process. We should consider how an issue is being tackled in an area and spread that good practice.

Caroline Flint: The hon. Lady makes a good point. All of us should be wary of broad statistics. We are dealing with a situation that requires all sorts of interventions on many levels. The problems that face two streets in one neighbourhood might be very different from those in another street nearby. I know from my work in child care, and from sitting on the board of a sure start project in my constituency, that we should commend interventions that help vulnerable families to cope with situations—whether or not they have any control over them.
 Projects such as South Yorkshire lifestyle citizenship project, which runs during the summer holidays to encourage young people to become involved in community activities, and other displacement activities and projects are part of the menu of what I call tough love. It recognises that in some areas activities are needed to take people out of their situations, and to encourage them to mix socially in a way that they have not previously done. It shows them that they have the choice between continuing to be a pain in the community—causing the sort of upset, grievance and intimidation that can result in a whole neighbourhood being destroyed—and taking up the opportunities offered by their local authority or youth service, educationalists or counsellors, voluntary or charitable groups or the Government. However, they are also told that if they carry on, action will be taken. The few should not be allowed disproportionately to affect the lives of the many. 
 In one area of my constituency, four or five families practically hold a community to ransom. We have been working on that situation not for a few months or a year but since I became a Member of Parliament in 1997, and we are still attempting to resolve it. It is difficult to go back to the community and say that we know how bad things are. However, we are now making progress. 
 I am pleased that the clause contains a reference to parenting orders. As we know, this huge area is not just a matter for the police. Many agencies are involved, including housing departments—which deal not just with council housing but with private sector housing—social services, youth services and the courts. One of the successes in Doncaster has been that, after a lot of prodding when ASBOs first became available, the council now has an antisocial behaviour unit, a collaborative venture between the agencies that aims to find a fresh approach to problems. An early problem involved lawyers who did not understand the system. Now that we have an antisocial behaviour unit, we have lawyers who are dedicated to fast-tracking ASBOs. 
 Each young person or child belongs to a family, and there are many types of family—we are not here to judge them. Unless families co-operate, enforcement can be difficult. The youth offending team in Doncaster and those who serve as lay members on the panel know that unless they involve the parents of the young people who come to see them, the job is only half done. I am pleased that the Bill recognises that fact. Parenting orders can take many forms. A parent may merely be told that a child must be indoors at a certain time, or that his or her whereabouts must be known. However, sometimes the order recommends a positive approach to engaging with the child that the parent had not thought of, and that helps the family to form a better relationship for the future. Sometimes it is a crying shame that no one intervened earlier in a situation. That is why sure start and other Government initiatives to lay down some investment are so worthwhile. Let us hope that as a result the next generation will not have to deal with so many problems.

James Clappison: I hope that the Committee is aware that I have long been interested in this subject. I strongly support anything that will help deal with antisocial behaviour. I have been a Member of Parliament for just over 10 years. Throughout that time the number of constituents coming to me with problems caused by antisocial behaviour has increased steadily year on year, irrespective of which party was in government, the economic circumstances or whether the area was going through prosperity or recession.
 Together with housing, antisocial behaviour is the most common problem that people come to see me about at my surgeries. People complain about it throughout the constituency. I attend meetings to do with antisocial behaviour not just in parts of the constituency regarded as lower-income areas or areas with lower housing costs but in every part. It is a common problem throughout the borough. It extends from wards in receipt of single regeneration budget funding because they are among the poorest, not only in Hertfordshire but in the whole country, to other wards recorded as among the top 10 most affluent in the country. I have an interest in antisocial behaviour orders. I support their objective and I would like to see them in operation. 
 The problem with ASBOs is learning lessons from the past so that we can make them more useful in the future. I cannot remember the name of the first proposal for antisocial behaviour orders, but the principle was the same—a civil order that would attract a criminal penalty if breached. The proposal was made by the Labour Opposition during debates on the Housing Act 1996. It was the subject of some debate, and interest was shown in all quarters as to how effective it would be in tackling the problem. It was not rejected out of hand by the then Government; an interest was taken and it was subject to critical and constructive debate. 
 The Minister will recall that ASBOs were one of the flagship provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 
 1998, together with a number of other provisions—child curfew orders, parenting orders and orders relating to drug treatment and testing. We should be objective. That range of orders has had a mixed record. Some have been more successful than others. The orders relating to drug treatment and testing have been helpful. The parenting orders are good in principle, although they have not been as widely used as they might have been; the Minister will know the figures. The number of orders that have been made is quite modest in relation to the problem that they seek to tackle. 
 The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made some comments about statistics, but it is relevant to consider how far the orders have been used in the context of all the orders introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act. I am not being partisan, but they were one of the flagship provisions. When they were introduced I continued to take an interest in them. From time to time I asked Ministers across the Floor of the House of Commons how many antisocial behaviour orders and child curfew orders had been made. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the orders were introduced in April 1999, so they have been available for about four years. When they were first introduced, Ministers told us that not as many orders as they would have liked had been made because magistrates and others had yet to get used to them. 
 After a while, Ministers said that the orders were not being made because winter had arrived, the nights were drawing in and people were not going out, but that we would see more evidence of them the following summer. The seasons passed, and the number of antisocial behaviour orders that were made in the country as a whole over the period of four years—the Minister will know the figures—was, objectively, modest, especially in relation to the scale of the problem. If I say that it was modest in relation to the scale of the problem in my constituency I am being flattering, as in the whole of the four years, not a single antisocial behaviour order was made in respect of any of the residents of my constituency.

Shona McIsaac: Why not?

James Clappison: The hon. Lady asks why not and I, too, have asked that question. The magistrates and the police in the borough in my constituency are not unique in not having made a single antisocial behaviour order; the same is true of other boroughs in Hertfordshire and throughout the country. The total for the country is modest in relation to the extent of the problem.

Caroline Flint: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He expressed empathy with all those who saw antisocial behaviour in their constituencies, and said that he had plenty of evidence that such behaviour went on in his community. As ASBOs are not being used in his constituency, my advice is that he should put all the agencies together and say, as I had to, ''There is a problem. This is the power to use. Why are you not using it? Are you doing anything else? You must justify not using the orders to my constituents.'' If ASBOs are not being used, how is antisocial behaviour
 being tackled in the hon. Gentleman's constituency? He seems to be saying that it is running riot.

James Clappison: It is not the only place where it may be running riot. The hon. Lady may be aware that the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established crime and disorder reduction partnerships, of which there is one in my constituency. They have been helpful in tackling the problems of crime and disorder as at least they have brought people together. The lesson for the hon. Lady is not to blame others for what has happened in respect of antisocial behaviour orders and say, ''It is all your fault for not making them,'' but to consider the nature of the orders and not to exaggerate their effectiveness in tackling the problem of antisocial behaviour. To keep returning to them as a way of tackling such behaviour—

Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: Will the hon. Lady let me reply to her first intervention? The lesson is not to keep returning to the orders as a way of tackling antisocial behaviour when there are other, much more effective ways of tackling it. I shall give way to the hon. Lady if she wants to make a further point, but I hope that she will take note of the fact that antisocial behaviour orders have been in place for four years; they were implemented exactly as the Government wanted—the Government would brook no amendment to them—although they have subsequently been amended. When they were first introduced, the Government told us that they were part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour and said how effective they would be. Perhaps the hon. Lady will tell the Committee how many antisocial behaviour orders have been made in the whole of the country over four years?

Caroline Flint: It seems from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is against antisocial behaviour orders. I therefore presume that he will vote against them. He has made a case based on his ideas that they are not working. I have not suggested that ASBOs are the only tool in the box, but they are a tool. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the number of ASBOs does not reflect the impact that they have on the community. Police officers in my constituency have said that the use of ASBOs has had a disproportionate effect in stopping others adopting the sort of behaviour that could lead to the issuing of an ASBO.

James Clappison: I hope that I have made it sufficiently clear that I do not oppose ASBOs, but I advise the hon. Lady to have a proper understanding of just how effective they have been.
 The hon. Lady advances another interesting argument in favour of ASBOs, which Ministers have also advanced from time to time, although they have stopped doing so recently. This is the theory that ASBOs are so frightening that they act as a deterrent on those who are minded to commit antisocial behaviour. The hon. Lady will have to accept that that is a difficult theory to test. It is difficult to find any statistics that prove that they are a deterrent, but I would be very interested in any such statistical 
 evidence. She must agree that the argument depends on the assumption that those who commit antisocial behaviour have quite a lot of legal knowledge about ASBOs.

David Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to support that theory. I warn him, however, that Ministers who advanced it have given up doing so.

David Wright: I am happy to defend the process. I recently met the chief superintendent in my area in west Mercia, who told me that the ASBO process had been undertaken numerous times—on 60 or 70 occasions. If there was a good quality partnership with a local authority and other agencies, the problems could be dealt with before ASBOs had to be issued. If the hon. Gentleman visits Telford, we can show him how it is done: he clearly cannot do it in his own constituency.

James Clappison: There we are. The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is very difficult to produce statistics to support that argument. I would welcome a debate about that. Perhaps he and the Minister could produce for the whole country the number of cases of antisocial behaviour that have been stopped by ASBOs. I am not sure about Telford—it may be one of those parts of the country about which the Committee has heard that happily is immune from antisocial behaviour—but the effect of ASBOs on the whole country, the number that have been issued and the effect of the threat of their being issued, is very modest indeed.

Nick Hawkins: Part of the answer to all Government Members who have intervened may be provided by the leader of the Government rebels—the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—in a letter that he gave to all members of the Committee this morning, in which he wrote:
''Many local councils welcome ASBOs but are prevented from using them against the most anti-social people because of the excessive level of proof required.''
 That is surely one of the many criticisms that Opposition Members and others have made about ASBOs.

James Clappison: The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) is nodding, but he should face the fact that Back-Bench members of his own party and Ministers have complained that insufficient numbers of ASBOs are being issued. Although it may not be true of his constituency, he has not addressed the point that the number of ASBOs issued and the threat of their being issued is modest compared with the scale of the problem. ASBOs have been tinkered with over and over again, which may contradict the hon. Gentleman's confidence in them. I will welcome anything that works and will support any evidence that the Government can produce that they are working.
 I have no problem with ASBOs in principle, but I want solutions that work. I wonder how far we will get with the extra measures in the clause. We note that the police, the British Transport police, local authorities and registered social landlords can already apply for 
 ASBOs. The clause allows housing action trusts to be added to that list. I am doubtful how many more ASBOs that will produce, and whether the effect of the threat of them will increase. I am happy to go along with the clause if it will make them work. However, we should not exaggerate the usefulness of ASBOs. Let us not have Bills produced just before local authority elections every year, so that the Government can say, ''Look here, we are cracking down on antisocial behaviour,'' while rehashing provisions that have been of limited use in the past. Let us not take that approach; let us take the approach of adopting measures that work. 
 Without straying out of order, let me tell hon. Members that one way of making antisocial behaviour orders work is to have sufficient numbers of police officers on the streets. In many cases, the police are involved in acquiring the proof or evidence that is needed to make the orders, but their time is under a great deal of pressure. The question is whether they can go through all the steps that are required to obtain an order, even as amended by the clause, when there are competing demands on their time. I am referring to police officers investigating serious crimes, when actual offences have been committed, as opposed to bringing in civil orders that might prevent future events. They do not have sufficient time to deal with criminal offences—sometimes fairly serious criminal offences, such as have been committed in my constituency. That is the real problem. 
 The hon. Member for Telford will say that police numbers have increased, but in the past six years the picture has been mixed. In any event, during the whole time that I have been a Member of Parliament, my constituents have continually demanded more police officers on the streets. They are very concerned that we have had a serious reduction in the number of officers, which has left the police very much under stress and under pressure. 
 With the best will in the world, I doubt whether an awful lot more antisocial behaviour orders will be made in future. I live in hope that they are. I hope that we see some of the effects to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I think that he will agree that they are difficult to prove. We welcome good experience from any part of the country, but please let us not exaggerate the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders. Let us have a proper understanding of their effectiveness. The Government introduced them in the first place as the solution to antisocial behaviour as part of a crackdown. Government Members will have to understand that the orders have not had that outcome.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for reminding the Committee of my Westminster Hall debate on the use of antisocial behaviour orders, which took place nearly four years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley was also there.
 The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) overstates the case. The Government never said that the orders were the whole solution to antisocial 
 behaviour. They said that they were part of a range of measures that could be used to tackle an increasing problem. It is fair to say that I have been disappointed with the number of antisocial behaviour orders that has been issued. What we need to discuss under this clause—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on this—is how we will encourage people to use antisocial behaviour orders more. Clause 37 is designed to deal with some of the questions that were raised as to why antisocial behaviour orders have not been used. Perhaps it will tackle some of the issues to make that easier. 
 It is a dangerous game to play to talk about whether someone has a good MP, based on the number of antisocial behaviour orders that have been introduced in the area, because I have none. I do not know what that says about me. My hon. Friends are very good MPs. The situation with the orders is different in other parts of Nottinghamshire. Indeed, in Nottingham city, which is adjacent to my constituency, Nottingham city council has used a large number of antisocial behaviour orders. However, my local council, which is next door and has exactly the same legislation and procedures, has used none. 
 Clearly, there is an issue if what I have described happens throughout the country. The purpose of the Committee is to say that antisocial behaviour orders will not solve the problem of antisocial behaviour, but that if we can make the process easier, they will form an effective part of the solution.

Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend detailed the patchy use of antisocial behaviour orders and other sanctions throughout the country. Does he think that the problem is not so much their complexity but the willingness and knowledge of the agencies involved?

Vernon Coaker: I want to say a brief word on the cultural change that needs to take place. My hon. Friend raises an important point about the willingness of the agencies to use the orders. However, the procedures also need to be examined and made easier. It is not an either/or situation. The answer is probably yes to both the points that my hon. Friend raised.

David Wright: My hon. Friend is, of course, an excellent constituency MP. The point that I was trying to make was that it is a question of process, as well as of the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders. For example, fewer antisocial behaviour orders are issued in my constituency than in neighbouring Shrewsbury. That means not that the process has been better implemented in Shrewsbury but that the authorities there have reached the final point more rapidly. If the matter can be dealt with through the process leading up to an antisocial behaviour order, so much the better.

Vernon Coaker: I think that that is true but people in an area must believe that their actions will have consequences—that if they carry on messing about, an order will be imposed. I accept the point about my hon. Friend's area, but in my area that has not been the case. People do not believe that there will be an end point.
 This is the first clause in the part of the Bill dealing with sanctions. The use of antisocial behaviour orders is an important issue. A recurring theme in the Committee has been the increased powers that we propose to give to the police and others to tackle the problem, and whether those powers will be used. If we cannot ensure that they are used, we are wasting our time. 
Several hon. Members rose—

Vernon Coaker: I will give way in a moment, but I wish to develop the point. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is sincere in what she said about the need to understand, to counsel and to have other alternatives available, but I believe that a cultural change in the way in which society deals with people who commit antisocial or criminal acts is needed. People have to believe that there will be a consequence if they do something wrong.
 No one is saying that the first thing that should be done with an 11 or 12-year-old who messes about is to slap an antisocial behaviour order on them. Of course they would be counselled, and attempts would be made to understand what had happened. However, there must be an end point and a consequence. Many people are starting to talk about the concept of ''tough love'', and I believe that that is right. We should try to understand and to give support, but there must be a much quicker final intervention to make people understand the consequences of their actions.

James Clappison: I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the clause. Does he agree that there should be consequences not just for the 11 and 12-year-old youngsters whom he describes but for their parents? Perhaps we should look further at parenting orders, which have been one of the more successful innovations of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and which, in my humble opinion, have more potential for tackling antisocial behaviour than the antisocial behaviour orders.

Vernon Coaker: I agree. The hon. Gentleman will have read clause 36 and will have seen that, under subsection (7), when the court issues an antisocial behaviour order to a young person under the age of 16, it can also impose a parenting order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, that is an important extension of the power. A recurring theme throughout the Bill, with respect to antisocial behaviour orders, is that we want the parents, in certain situations, to take more responsibility for the behaviour of their sons or daughters.

Matthew Green: I support the comments by the hon. Member for Telford, since our constituencies share a police force. My constituency shares a police division with Shrewsbury and Atcham. In Shrewsbury and Atcham, antisocial behaviour orders have been used fairly extensively and successfully. In my constituency, none has been used.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no antisocial behaviour there.

Matthew Green: I said that there was very little antisocial behaviour. However, I do not see it as bad
 that no antisocial behaviour orders are used in my constituency. The use of raw statistics—how many antisocial behaviour orders have been used in the country, or which places do or do not have them—glosses over the fact that there are different approaches, some of which have been very successful. In other parts of the country, acceptable behaviour contracts have been used instead of antisocial behaviour orders. We must therefore be cautious about saying that not enough orders have been used. We need to study individual areas to decide whether an approach works.

Vernon Coaker: I accept that a raw statistic does not tell the whole story, but not enough antisocial behaviour orders have been used. I know from my constituency that that is not because of wonderful things such as acceptable behaviour contracts, but because of the fundamental failure of those responsible for tackling such issues and, indeed, of the Government, who have not made antisocial behaviour orders easier to use. The fact that we do not have many orders is a sign of failure, not of success. I take the point that an area has not necessarily got better just because it has five orders while another area has two. None the less, I doubt that there are many areas in the country where ordinary members of the public could point to a case in which they thought that an antisocial behaviour order should not have been used.

Nick Hawkins: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman has taken a constructive approach throughout our debates. I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Don Valley that the inclusion of subsection (7) is helpful. I do not want anyone to think that we oppose attempts to make the law better. Like the hon. Gentleman, we have always said that the original antisocial behaviour order proposals were too bureaucratic and too complex. I know that he will agree that that was one reason why they were not used enough in the first place.

Vernon Coaker: I accept that. That was a helpful intervention.
 Antisocial behaviour orders and the other sanctions in the clause must be part of a cultural change in society. As well as trying to understand and to deal with the problems, we must be tougher with individuals who cause mayhem on our streets. They must understand that their actions will have consequences. 
 In closing, I have a specific question for my hon. Friend the Minister, although I may have misread the clause. The introduction of community support officers is significant and radical, and they can help enormously to tackle the problems that we are discussing. However, I do not see them on the list of people who can request antisocial behaviour orders. Given that they are one of the major planks in our efforts to tackle problems in our communities, can my hon. Friend say whether they should have the power to suggest that antisocial behaviour orders should be used? Will he reflect on whether they should be included in the list? 
 With those brief remarks, I welcome the clause, which will encourage the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Such orders are not the solution to the problems in our communities, but they are part of a general range of sanctions.

Bob Ainsworth: The general debate relates to an important policy area, and I shall comment on some of the issues that were raised.
 There is the issue of why antisocial behaviour orders have not been used more widely. We had some serious input into that debate, although we also had some point scoring, which is inevitable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has said, we must combine two things. We must simplify the process, and we have already introduced measures to do so. Indeed, we are introducing measures in the Bill to make antisocial behaviour orders more accessible. However, my hon. Friend also mentioned the need for a cultural change. I find it strange that hon. Members should suggest that it is not for Members of Parliament to comment on the priorities of organisations in their constituencies. The attitude that has come across is that my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley and for Cleethorpes should confine their comments to the structure of the legislation—how dare they make comments about how the police, the local authority, the courts or whoever operate in their area? 
 None of us, however, really believes that. As Members of Parliament, we all know what we need to do if we are to get the cultural change that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling talks about. We need to participate in the framing of legislation to ensure that it gives people the powers that they need and we need to keep those powers under review to ensure that they are as useable as they need to be. We also need to get involved in our local communities, to be proactive and to find out why things operate as they do and why other people have priorities that we do not share. At the end of the day, that is democratic representation, is it not? 
 In Cleethorpes, it seems that the police have been reluctant to get involved in antisocial behaviour orders. If that were true, it would be strange indeed if a Member of Parliament did not have a view, unless antisocial behaviour was not a problem in the constituency. In Coventry, where we were involved before the 1997 election in framing policies on such matters, the police were keen to get involved in antisocial behaviour orders. However, we had problems from the local authority legal department there, which was resistant to giving assistance and getting involved. It is wrong to suggest that we can get the necessary buy-in to deal with antisocial behaviour without Members of Parliament being leaders on what needs to done in their local communities, finding out why others do not buy into the priorities that they and their constituents share, and constantly urging the Government to review legislation in order to ensure that it be useable and accessible.

James Clappison: I am with the Minister on much of what he says, but does he remember when the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said as Home
 Secretary that we should have an evidence-based approach? What works is important, so if it is becoming evident that the approach in one piece of legislation is having only a limited effect and that other things are more effective, such as tackling parents through parenting orders or drug problems through drug treatment and testing orders, should we not give priority to those schemes and to increasing the number of police officers, rather than continually revisiting something that has had limited usefulness?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not totally buy into what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let us not get back into point scoring, because we could all go over the issue of police numbers again. I could say that crime doubled under the last Conservative Government, which it did, and that police numbers were falling. I could point out that we have turned that situation round, that there are now record numbers and that the official Opposition are pledged to 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure. I could ask where on earth they are going to get the extra police officers from, but that would not achieve a lot.

James Cran: Order. I can see where this debate is going, so I should like to be assured that it will not go any further in that direction.

Bob Ainsworth: I give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.

Annette Brooke: I think that you will prefer my quieter approach to get us back on track, Mr. Cran. I understand that each crime and disorder reduction partnership must nominate an antisocial behaviour officer from within the local authority. Will the Minister confirm that? That officer is an important person to make contact with. How much sharing of best practice has there been between such people, who have in their portfolios—probably along with other jobs—responsibility for their area's antisocial policies?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not think that there is anything like enough sharing of best practice and we must certainly work at that. On my other point, hon. Members have a role both in framing legislation and in investigating the under-use of powers that are available.
 Antisocial behaviour orders cannot be seen in isolation. They should not be abandoned for more popular or successful measures, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested. We must work at making antisocial behaviour orders more widely available as we spread best practice, as well as using those other measures. 
 Only 785 antisocial behaviour orders were reportedly issued up to the end of 2002. I will not pretend that that is an acceptable number. There is a problem with under-reporting, so the number is probably higher than that, but I am not suggesting that we have used the powers to their fullest extent. However, there have been 3,106 parenting orders, and 3,816 juvenile curfew orders. We must look at the entire package. We should not regard it as frozen legislation. The problem still exists, and we must refine the answer to that problem. 
 CSOs cannot request antisocial behaviour orders. A chief officer makes the application, after consulting a local authority. CSOs could, however, be involved in the decision about whether to suggest that an application be made. That is central to the role that they play within communities.

Liz Blackman: We have established that the Bill gives authorities a better chance of obtaining antisocial behaviour orders. We have also had a discussion about the role of MPs. My hon. Friend mentioned that it would be a good idea to further spread best practice and that more work needed to be done on that. Could he flesh out how that will happen and how he sees the strategic role of Government in ensuring accountability once the Bill becomes law? Central Government are a partner in this matter. How are we going to make sure that the patchy way that the orders are enforced will be made consistent?

Bob Ainsworth: The Home Secretary fully recognises that it is not the job of the Home Office simply to frame legislation and then to leave it to others. Delivery must be at the heart of everything that we do. We must engage with local government, which is an important partner. We must look at the operation of the court system. We must look at the engagement of the police. Delivery and how legislation is used should be central to the responsibilities of central Government. It is not good enough for central Government to provide the legislative framework, only for others to take over the job thereafter. That certainly is not the view of the Home Secretary, nor is it the view of this Government. The Government must see their role as deliverers, not just as legislators.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend has said that community support officers will not be able to apply for antisocial behaviour orders. I ask him to give that matter further consideration.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall, and my hon. Friend will batter my ear if I do not do it—although he may batter my ear even more if I agree to do it: I have no way out.
 In order to deliver in that area, the Home Office has set up an antisocial behaviour unit. Its job is not only to talk to practitioners about the powers that are available, but to get feedback on whether and how they are being used and to ensure that the legislative process is being put properly into practice.

Liz Blackman: I accept that we are not starting with a blank sheet, but will the Minister accept that councils perform differently? The Government may need to be a little more proactive in targeting those that perform less well, in order to get them up to the mark.

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, we accept that. The Government, the antisocial behaviour unit and Members of Parliament all have an important role to play.
 I return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. She said that the ASBO is an enforcement measure and that she wanted to see more activities attached to the ASBO to deal with the underlying causes of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling addressed that point. Yes, 
 measures to tackle those underlying issues are needed, but to attach them to ASBOs would make the orders not more accessible but, potentially, less so. I would be totally opposed to something being built into the ASBO that would result in them not being issued or pursued unless this, that or the other had been put in place beforehand. 
 I agree with all my hon. Friends—we are not in contradiction—that we must see a change of attitude. Yes, of course there has to be support and care; and no one suggests that the first intervention for a 10-year-old should be an enforcement one. However, we must get more into the frame of mind that certain things are not acceptable and that enforcement action will be taken.

Annette Brooke: Let me clarify my point. The problem is that we are widening the number of people who can apply for an ASBO. I am confident when a local authority is at the heart of the order, because I know who the antisocial behaviour officers are and I can work with them. However, I do not have that confidence when the ASBO is initiated by a registered social housing landlord, because I do not know the landlord and, as a result, do not know that earlier processes have been engaged on.
 My concern is that, when bringing more bodies into the system, one could jump through a lot of hoops and go straight to the process. I want to be reassured that everything will be tied together. I keep making the point that there is no requirement for housing associations to be at the centre of a crime and disorder reduction partnership, and I would feel more confident if there was such a requirement. It works as a total partnership in some parts of the country, but the legislation does not include the sort of safeguard that I am looking for—which I think is a pretty reasonable one. I do not want to undermine the system. The problem lies in extending the power to other bodies that are not locked into the partnership.

Bob Ainsworth: Housing action trusts need to be able to apply for ASBOs. Their tenants are often at the receiving end of the problems suffered by our communities. We will not allow housing action trusts to apply for orders without consulting the police or the local authority. They will have to consult before making an order, and it is right that they should do so. They cannot do that in isolation and without that consultation.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Certain orders made on

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 37, page 29, leave out lines 5 to 7.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 66, in 
clause 37, page 29, leave out lines 34 to 36.

Nick Hawkins: First, let my say that I think that the debate that we have just had was extremely useful. Dealing with these amendments is linked to that. I wanted personally to compliment the Minister and the Government. That is not something that I do every day, but the Minister will be aware that in a previous debate in which he and I were involved in Committee, I proposed amendments to enable courts to publicise the names of juveniles who had been made the subject of an antisocial behaviour order. The Minister gave a sympathetic reply, as he often does. He said that he would continue to keep the matter under review. He was under pressure from his own Back Bench, specifically the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who did not agree with him. However, he said that he agreed more with me than with her, which caused some amusement.
 I was delighted to see subsection (9)(c) in this clause, because it is the Government's response to the points not only that I made in Committee, but that my local authority had made. I am looking at a letter sent by the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council, Mr. Barry Catchpole, to Louise Casey who, I believe, is still the head of the antisocial behaviour unit at the Home Office. The Minister is looking puzzled. I will draw his attention to the Official Report when we break at 11.25 am. I remember this vividly and I am not being tongue-in-cheek. This is a genuine thank you to the Minister and to all those people in the Home Office who put subsection (9)(c) into the Bill, because it reflects precisely a weakness that had occurred in my own constituency where the police and the local authority—the crime and disorder reduction partnership—had done a huge amount of work to bring two brothers finally before the courts and to issue an ASBO. The local Camberley newspaper desperately wanted to publicise that as part of the deterrent effect—to make an ASBO work and to make local people aware that an ASBO had been granted. However, because the two brothers were under the relevant age, the press were refused permission to publicise the case, and the police and chief executive of the local authority wrote to me to say that that defeated the object of the exercise and weakened the ASBO. The newspaper group took the matter to appeal to obtain permission to publicise it and were refused because of the state of the law. That should not happen now, so it is a pleasure to be able to compliment the Minister on this occasion. 
 I know that we will return to the issue of publicity on a second group of amendments, so I do not wish to say too much now, but it is no surprise that when the Government finally do something right and listen to us, the Liberal Democrats then oppose it. I have no hesitation in drawing attention to the fact that when the Government and the Opposition are doing something sensible together, the Liberal Democrats are against it. We shall return to that. 
 We are seeking in these amendments to make a further improvement in flexibility. We wish to query with these probing amendments whether it is necessary to have new subsection (3B) in each of subsections (2) and (5). At the moment the Government have inserted: 
''It is immaterial whether evidence led in pursuance of subsection (3A) would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted.''
 We simply wish to probe whether that is necessary. No doubt the Minister will explain precisely his thoughts on subsections (3B). Does one need to say in such terms that something is immaterial? I am not convinced that those words have to be in the Bill. We will listen to the Minister with interest.

Bob Ainsworth: The usual trick when someone pours on one the kind of praise that the hon. Gentleman has just poured on me is to sit quietly and accept it, but I am so suspicious of him that I shall not do that. I have absolutely no memory of the debate to which he referred and I am convinced that he is getting me mixed up with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I make that point just in case there is a barb in what the hon. Gentleman says.
 There is some uncertainty among magistrates courts regarding the evidence that can be presented in support of banning orders on conviction and orders on conviction for antisocial behaviour. The experience is that magistrates courts are not consistent in allowing additional evidence in the post-conviction civil phase of the proceedings. Amendments No. 65 and 66 would preserve that uncertainty and consequent inconsistency. The intention is to make it easier for the court to determine whether the offence for which the individual has been convicted is an isolated incident or part of a pattern of behaviour. The provisions will also make it easier for the court to determine whether the imposition of a preventive order will help prevent further incidents of antisocial behaviour or football hooliganism. The court needs to be satisfied of the preventive effect before it makes an order. 
 However, the evidence that may be relevant to that decision may not have been relevant to the incident that led to the criminal charge and may not have been admissible in those proceedings, such as video recordings of behaviour at football matches or hearsay evidence from professional witnesses, employees of a local authority or social workers. If the approach is to be consistent, we must make it clear to those responsible that once the criminal aspect of the hearing has been dealt with and the process has moved on to the application for the antisocial behaviour order, evidence such as video and hearsay evidence is in order to make a case. That is what the clause would do. However, I am afraid that the amendment would prevent us from doing that, which is why I must resist it.

Nick Hawkins: I understand what the Minister says, and I said that we had tabled a probing amendment. However, the Minister does not need to be suspicious. I am certain and can show him the relevant section in Hansard to prove that I am not confusing him with his right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen. I am slightly surprised, as I thought that the incident would have stuck in the Minister's memory as it has in mine, given the exchange that he had in a previous debate with me and with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. However, to satisfy the
 Minister's curiosity, I shall find the Hansard today to reassure him. There is no barb. The Minister does not need to be suspicious and—

James Cran: Order. I have heard enough of this. I expect everyone when they leave the Room to check it up.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in
clause 37, page 29, leave out lines 15 to 17.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 85, in 
clause 37, page 29, leave out lines 18 to 24.
 Amendment No. 176, in 
clause 37, page 29, leave out lines 19 to 22.

Annette Brooke: If discretion were the better part of valour, I might have stayed seated and not taken this matter up with the Committee. However, I am moving amendment No. 84, which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) tabled and with which Liberal Democrat amendment No. 176 is grouped. The hon. Gentleman's amendments remove more lines than the Liberal Democrat amendment, which I prefer, although we can take it as read that the thrust of both is the same, so I shall make the same comments.
 When he was speaking to earlier amendments, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath decided to address the issue under discussion in advance—perhaps he will make no further comment. It is therefore right that an alternative view be put. The world is not black and white and there are circumstances in which it is not a good thing to name and shame young people. We should consider the issue seriously, yet many members in the Committee have seen matters in black and white this morning and on other occasions.

Vernon Coaker: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: May I just get to the thrust of my argument? I have not got that far.
 The Minister will probably reply in much the same way as members of the Select Committee on Home Affairs did, by pointing out that young people can be named when antisocial behaviour orders have been presented in other forums, and that the restriction only applies to the youth court. Nevertheless, I want to make this point because it is a matter of principle. The point of an antisocial behaviour order is to stop behaviour. If the whole world knows the name of a child, does that help the implementation of the order? It might make a lot of people feel better if the child is named, but I am not convinced that doing so is necessary. I take a liberal point of view on the issue—and why not? Someone in this Room must do so. 
 First, there is the question of labelling. If someone were named, that would hit the press and would affect that individual's future employment prospects if it became widely known. I certainly do not give up on 
 young people as young as 10, and whatever hon. Members say or shout at me, that view should be expressed. There is also the practical aspect: having an ASBO attached to one's back might have a bit of kudos, and therefore might lead to more antisocial behaviour. That is one of the reasons that we do not always take extreme action against terrorism, for example, because there is something heroic about it.

Shona McIsaac: Oh, for God's sake!

Annette Brooke: There could be perceived to be something heroic about being named, because it generates more antisocial behaviour.
 I think that it is rather sad. There are alternative views in the world. It is important to appreciate that naming and shaming is not always the right thing to do. There are many circumstances in which it is not: a young person in very tragic circumstances may need protecting. I say to the Minister that the issues are not black and white and that, however difficult cases are and however tough people want to make the measures, there are some young people whom we should not give up on at the age of 10.

James Cran: Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Annette Brooke: Yes, Mr. Cran, I will give way now. I had forgotten.

Vernon Coaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady, because I know that she tried to intervene on me earlier and I forgot that she was trying to do so. I was not intending to be rude.
 Many of us would agree with some of the points that the hon. Lady makes if the court did not retain the discretion to decide whether it was in the interests of the child or of public safety to name the child. Surely the discretion retained by the courts addresses some of the issues that she raises?

Annette Brooke: I accept that that discretion covers some of the aspects, but I hope that I have made the point that going from one extreme to the other is not necessarily a good thing.

Bob Ainsworth: I would have liked to understand the point that the hon. Lady made about terrorism, but I did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has just exposed the fact that what the hon. Lady said to the Committee was different from what she proposed in the amendment, because that discretion remains.
 The clause removes an anomaly by bringing reporting restrictions for orders on conviction in a youth court into line with those made in a magistrates court, as those made against juveniles in a magistrates court are not subject to automatic reporting restrictions. I assure hon. Members that the details of the criminal conviction will remain confidential and that the court will have the discretion to apply reporting restrictions where appropriate—for example, in the interests of rehabilitation. That decision can be taken there and then in the youth court as it can be taken in the magistrates court. However, this measure will close the loopholes, ensure consistency, and make the orders more enforceable for agencies that have to tackle antisocial behaviour on the ground. 
 Effective publicising of orders is an important part of how they work. Awareness of an order and its conditions enables communities to assist the statutory agencies to monitor the order and to expose whether it is being breached. It reassures victims and witnesses that action is being taken to protect them.

Nick Hawkins: I did not want intervene too soon, because I wanted the Minister to explain the Government's stance. I am delighted with the way he puts it. Does he agree with Mr. Catchpole, the chief executive of Surrey Heath borough council, who wrote to the head of the antisocial behaviour unit in January this year that it is important to introduce laws that will enable offenders under 18 to be identified both on television and through local media? His view is that there is no reason whatever to withhold the identities of such miscreants for the reasons the Minister stated.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not accept that there is no reason to withhold the identities of individuals; there can be a reason to do so. If the court can be convinced that it is not in the interests of the individual concerned that publicity be given and that there is a chance of effective rehabilitation that publicity could damage, publicity would not be appropriate. We are giving the courts discretion to consider such situations and to decide whether it its appropriate to publicise the case. They already have such discretion in the magistrates court and they should have it in the youth court. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is saying something reasonable that is not in line with the amendments she has tabled.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister. I am pleased to have made the points I did, because when I hear that youngsters should be shown on television it appals me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Caroline Flint: I rise to ask for clarification. This is the only part of the Bill where I can raise the issue, because it deals with sanctions against breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. Have the Government considered the nature of breaches? A problem that has occurred in my area is that the initial order can be handled by the police or the local authority—in the case of Doncaster it is the antisocial behaviour unit—and their legal representation, but breaches are handled by the Crown Prosecution Service.
 I want clarification because in our experience the Crown Prosecution Service has tended to come to such cases without a great deal of knowledge of the background and the impact on the community. In meetings with magistrates, they have said to me that often when breaches occur and the case comes back to court, the person who has breached the order has been with their lawyer for a considerable time, even though they may be a young person or a child. The lawyer puts a well-rounded case on behalf of that person, relating all the ills they have met along the way, yet the CPS can come along as if the case is part of the job lot for the day; it has not been involved with the case and 
 it does not put forward a particularly good case on behalf of the community. 
 I have raised with the Solicitor-General the issue of guidance to the CPS on how it deals with antisocial behaviour orders. She said that the Government are concerned about that and about the issue of breaches being handled by the legal representation that initiated the legal order in the first place. Whether it is contained here or dealt with elsewhere, breaches are important. We pass the orders and if they are breached people, must have a sense that the case will be put forward on their behalf as thoroughly as it was when the initial order was made.

Nick Hawkins: I understand entirely the question that the hon. Member for Don Valley raises and I have no doubt that the Minister is getting some advice to enable him respond to that sensible contribution even as I speak.
 On the clause in general, I agree with the point that the hon. Member for Gedling made in his intervention on the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Concerns about the way in which publicity will work should be addressed through giving the court discretion. I want also to mention the view of the chief executive of my local authority. The hon. Member for Gedling and other hon. Members will understand that the court retaining discretion over publicity is an important safeguard. However, we must recognise the frustrations of senior police officers and chief executives of local authorities, who have found that the restrictions placed on the operation of ASBOs have meant that they have not been as effective against the worst offenders in areas such as mine as the police, the local authority and the crime and disorder reduction partnerships wanted them to be. That is why I said in my opening remarks on the first group of amendments to the clause that we welcome the fact that the Government are making the system more workable. 
 The last complete year for which the Home Office has produced figures, which I have had from the Library, is the year ending November 2002. At that stage only 789 ASBOs had been issued throughout the whole country, although there have obviously been a lot more since. When compared with the Government's original notion that there might be 5,000 a year, which I remember vividly from the first debates, that figure of 789 in four years is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said earlier, very disappointing if we want ASBOs to work. 
 I hope that the way in which the amendment to the law contained in clause 37 makes the process more flexible and enables more publicity and a greater deterrent effect will bring some improvement. We still think that further improvements could be made—we have put forward some suggestions and there are one or two more to come in subsequent groups of amendments, although I would be out of order to talk about those now. However, we think that as the clause a whole is a helpful improvement and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response to the Member for Don Valley.

Bob Ainsworth: Breaches are and have been a problem. The latest available figures, for June 2000 to December 2001, show that 29 per cent. of ASBOs were breached and the cases prosecuted, and that 43 per cent. of those who were prosecuted received immediate custodial sentences. We need to ensure that the CPS is at the centre of prosecution for breaches. We are talking to the CPS and the Lord Chancellor's Department so that they establish procedures to ensure that the local authority concerned and the police are called in cases of breach, in order to ensure that the courts are fully aware of the impact of that breach on the wider community when deciding how to act.
 On the other issue, I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley to subsection (3). New section 1C(9A) to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will allow the local authority to prosecute for a breach, so we are doing precisely what she wants us to do. Although we want the CPS to perform that function, we also intend to give the ability to pursue that breach to the local authority that sought the order and in whose area the antisocial behaviour took place in the first place.

Matthew Green: On a point of information, are there any other circumstances in which a local authority can bring criminal proceedings that might end with imprisonment?

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, a fair few.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Penalty notices for disorderly

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in
clause 38, page 30, line 3, leave out subsection (2).

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 67, in 
clause 38, page 30, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
 Amendment No. 178, in 
clause 38, page 30, line 28, after 'ages', insert 
 ', only following publication of fixed penalty notice pilot schemes' evaluations and after consultation with relevant interest groups, children's charities and youth magistrates.'.
 Amendment No. 179, in 
clause 39, page 30, line 31, after 'effect', insert 
 'only after evaluations of pilot schemes have been published.'.

Annette Brooke: It is a pleasure to move amendment No. 177. The other amendments in the group include our amendments Nos. 178 and 179, as well as the Conservatives' amendments Nos. 121 and 67.
 I will speak briefly about fixed penalty notices. We are greatly concerned about the extension of the use of fixed penalty notices, before proper full evaluation has been published.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Cran. Perhaps the hon. Lady has been misled by looking at
 an earlier selection of amendments that contained amendment No. 121. That amendment was withdrawn two days ago, and does not appear on the current list. Perhaps the hon. Lady needs to update her notes.

James Cran: I am sure that the hon. Lady is delighted to hear that advice.

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Cran.
 I return to the matter of fixed penalty notices. There have been proposals to extend their use before the halfway point has been reached in their first year of piloting in four main pilot areas. We have constantly asked for details of the pilot schemes and how well they are working. There are reports that they are working well—we have heard about a 60 per cent. collection rate. 
 Fixed penalty notices are applied for a wide variety of behaviour, including drunk and disorderly behaviour. We had great concerns about how that particular example would work in practice. While I accept that, in the four pilot areas, there has been a high rate of collection of fines, I have not seen a breakdown by the various categories showing in which areas the notices have been most effective. We have asked for that information. One of our main points is that we do not believe that the scheme should be extended until the monitoring is complete and the pilot project has ended. 
 Amendment No. 177 would remove the reduction from 18 to 16 in the age at which the measure is applicable. We do not want the scheme to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds for two reasons: first, the lack of evaluation and, secondly, the concerns of interest groups about extending the scheme. Those views need to be heard. I sympathise with the argument for consistency—in many other fields, the ''legal'' age is 16—and I see the logic of that argument. If I had received the full evaluation, I might have considered that argument, but without the full evaluation being available it is right to state the views of concerned groups. I hope that I will not be the subject of interventions about consistency. 
 The Children's Society is very concerned about the extension to 16 and 17-year-olds. It suggests that that age group is already significantly discriminated against in terms of entitlement to financial and other benefits. The society certainly opposes to any extension of the clause to children younger than 16, which the Conservative amendment addresses, to an extent. The Local Government Association is also concerned. It advocates the consideration of further referral panels for young offenders, rather than the use of fixed penalty tickets. The Law Society has expressed concern. The National Association of Probation Officers feels that young people who are involved in antisocial or criminal activity should be dealt with by the youth justice system, using some of the measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. There is a host of questions about the extension of the measure, especially because full evaluations of the pilots have not been published. 
 The Liberal Democrats appear to be rather more moderate than the Conservatives in this respect. I am not sure which of their amendments does what as I was 
 working last night on an earlier amendment paper. I am not keen on the extension to the younger age group, but we suggest that covering the ages 10 to 16 should be considered only after publication of the fixed penalty notice pilot scheme evaluations and full consultation with all the relevant interests groups, children's charities and youth magistrates. It seems reasonable to do that before taking the power to introduce the measure in future, although I understand that the affirmative procedure would have to be followed. An alternative to our modest approach of ensuring that we have considered all aspects fully would be to remove the reference to the 10 to 16 age group. 
 Amendment No. 179 applies to clause 39, but I should like to speak in rather more detail about the principles behind it when we get to schedule 2. It reinforces the fact that we think that when young people are involved, it is important to run pilot schemes and that they should be fully evaluated. I will pick up the details of the next clause when we get to schedule 2, but the principles are the same. We call for a pilot scheme on the intensive fostering proposal and for it not to be extended until there has been a full evaluation.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Lady did her level best to get herself out of the bind of the inconsistency of Liberal Democrat policy, but I am afraid she failed. I hoped that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) would move the amendment because we have come to recognise his personal crusade to reduce the voting age to 16 as. As the hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Gedling observed from a sedentary position when the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole was speaking, it is typical of the Liberal Democrats that they want to increase the powers of 16-year-olds without giving them any of the responsibilities. That is so often a flaw—

Matthew Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: I will in a moment. Our view is that if 16-year-olds are causing the problem—sadly, in many of our communities, they are—they must face the full rigours of the law. Whereas we simply want to probe the issue of the Henry VIII provision for the Secretary of State's further powers, as we do in amendment No. 67, we entirely understand where the Government are coming from in seeking to reduce the age limits. It is extraordinary that a party that says it cares about antisocial behaviour and wants to give more rights to 16-year-olds is not prepared to let those same 16-year-olds face the rigours of the law.

Matthew Green: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's describes this as my personal crusade, but there are others in the Committee, such as the hon. Members for Gedling and for Telford, who might be a bit upset to hear it described as my crusade—

James Cran: Order. I do not want to hear any more about this crusade. I should like us to get back to the point of the amendment.

Matthew Green: At the moment the Conservative spokesman and, in effect, the Government, suggest
 that we should lay penalties on to 16 and 17-year-olds, who do not currently have the same rights as older people. Many of us would be happy for the provisions to apply to 16-year-olds if they had the same rights as others. If that were the case, we would be more than happy for the provisions to apply at 16, not 18.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman has not responded well to the difficulty posed by the inconsistency between his policy and that of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.
 I, too, will refer specifically to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 178 and 179. I have noticed—and I am happy to say that the electorate in the Guildford borough end of my constituency now seem to have noticed—that the Liberal Democrats always want to consult almost to death. I am sure that the reason why there were so many Liberal Democrat defeats in the Guildford borough end of my constituency—they lost every seat, even on parish councils—is that people increasingly realise that the Liberal Democrats believe that consultation is a substitute for action. The Liberal Democrats always want to consult, consult, consult about every conceivable piece of legislation, but they never want to get around to doing anything. 
 That is why I particularly object to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 178, which has the same tenor as Liberal Democrat amendment No. 179. They do not want to do anything until there has been further evaluation—another word for consultation—of the pilot schemes. Amendment No. 179 is not quite as bad as amendment No. 178, but it is incumbent on us to publicise what goes on in Committee to a wider audience so that they can see that whenever the Government are trying to move in the right direction and to make the powers more widely available, we support the spirit of what the Government are trying to do, but the Liberal Democrats are always, always, always trying to water them down.

Annette Brooke: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that one should never evaluate anything before extending a scheme?

Nick Hawkins: Of course not, but it is not helpful to have further consultation as a substitute for action. That is my point, and that is why we strongly oppose Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 178 and 179, especially amendment No. 178.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins: No. I have given way once already and I am now going to sit down.

Bob Ainsworth: Are we getting grumpy late in the morning?
 The amendment would prevent the extension of penalty notices for disorder to 16 and 17-year-olds and remove the power to lower the age at which they apply below 16. They would require publication of the evaluation and the consultation before specifying—I am sorry, I believe that that amendment has been withdrawn. 
 Amendment No. 179 would mean that the evaluation of the pilot scheme had to be published before a national roll-out of the changes to the supervision orders. We believe that penalty notices 
 for disorder have an important part to play in tackling antisocial behaviour among 16 and 17-year-olds, but they currently apply only to those aged 18 or over. The pilots of the adult scheme showed that most of the disorder offences involve alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in town centres on a Friday and a Saturday night. It was well worth the hon. Member for Surrey Heath giving way to the hon. Member for Ludlow, who came close to suggesting that because people did not have the vote, they should be allowed to continue to behave in such ways. That was well worth getting on the record. 
 The extension of the scheme would allow the police to impose an immediate sanction on antisocial behaviour, which will act as a deterrent but will not leave young people with a conviction. It will also encourage the police to take action against antisocial behaviour in the street, which is not being dealt with to anything like the degree to which it should be. 
 The Association of Chief Police Officers urged the Government to extend the scheme not only to 16 and 17-year-olds, but to younger children. The chief constable of West Midlands police evaluated the pilot scheme in the West Midlands police force area and is a keen supporter of reducing the age at which the scheme applies and widening the range of offences in respect of which fixed penalty notices can be used. It is a sad fact that some town centres have problems with children as young as 12 and 13 years old committing alcohol-related offences late at night. 
 However, we are not moving straight to a scheme that involves under–16s. We will first pilot the scheme on 16 and 17-year-olds to see whether it can be usefully applied to the younger age group, and we will seek Parliament's approval by the affirmative procedure if we want to lower the age limit further. We do not intend to use the power to specify different amounts for different age groups immediately, but it may be appropriate to do so if fixed penalty notices are issued to younger children. It would be similar to how fines operate, with a lower set for children under 14. We believe that it is sensible to have those powers in the Bill.

Vernon Coaker: Many people will be waiting for the Government to take action on 16 and 17-year-olds and will have heard about the penalty notices scheme. Our problem is that we will have to tell them that legislation must first go through Parliament before there is a pilot scheme, which then must be evaluated. If the pilot scheme is successful, when does my hon. Friend envisage the power being available?

Bob Ainsworth: We should not jump immediately, but I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. There is a degree of frustration in parts of the country that know how successful some of the pilots have already been. That is why I refute the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that we must wait for final evaluations on each occasion before moving a step further. We must be pragmatic and careful: let us pilot the schemes and see what happens. However, we are beginning to get evidence of how successful the powers can be in particular areas,
 so we should not allow people to sit frustrated for an unreasonable length of time before giving the powers to the rest of the country.

Laura Moffatt: Can we please have a pilot scheme in Crawley?

Caroline Flint: And Don Valley?

Vernon Coaker: And Gedling?

Bob Ainsworth: But not in Ludlow.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does my hon. Friend understand our constituents' frustration and the widespread belief that there are no consequences of bad behaviour? People who are kept up all night by groups of young children aged 10 and up, knowing that they can do nothing about it, will greet another pilot scheme with dismay.

Bob Ainsworth: The pilots are running for over–18s and, as I said, they have proved to be extremely successful in some circumstances. We must roll them out as quickly as possible and then examine lowering the age. My hon. Friend will understand that some modifications may be sensible. We should not leap to the conclusion that the scheme will be a good thing across the country for 16 and 17-year-olds. We are trying to get the balance right.
 I understand the frustration, but in large part it has built up because it is difficult to get the police service to engage to the desired degree in dealing with antisocial behaviour because of the process that they are obliged to go through as a result. If police officers are going to be tied up for hours taking cases to court to deal with alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, they will be reluctant to put in the resources. The evidence from the fixed penalty notices scheme is beginning to show that if we give the police a quick and easy-to-use method of dealing with that behaviour, they are keen to respond.

Shona McIsaac: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that in this country 17-year-olds can drive and thus be given fixed penalty notices for driving and parking offences, the philosophy of extending fixed penalty notices to those under 18 is not alien?

Bob Ainsworth: I am listening both to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members. Some valid points have been made. I shall consider how quickly we should move and check that we are not being over-cautious. People have been worried about the possible consequences of the proposed extensions; equally, as my hon. Friends are clearly illustrating, there is frustration in the community. People feel that there is potentially a method of dealing with problems, but that we are slow in making it available to them. I assure the Committee that I shall think about the time scales.
 We were proposing to limit the extension of the scheme to 16 and 17-year-olds, and to apply the same level of penalty that applies to adults: £80 for higher tier offences, such as section 7 public order offences, and £40 for lower tier offences, such as drunk and disorderly. We also recognise the value of consultation before introducing different levels of penalty for different age groups, but we need to be flexible and we do not want to tie ourselves down in the legislation. 
 We shall, of course, draw on the evaluation for 16 and 17-year-olds and proceed with care. It may be that, although we go down that route, circumstances arise in which we have to respond quickly. However, it is not necessary to state that in the Bill. 
 The main reason for the changes to both the curfew order and the supervision order is to strengthen the administrative intensity of the supervision and surveillance programme. That will allow the programme to be available for up to 12 months rather than the current six months. We shall pilot the extension of the programme in selected areas. It is unnecessary to specify that in the legislation. 
 We shall consider the results of the pilots before national implementation. We do not think that there is a need to pilot the changes to the curfew and supervision orders as they will be used primarily for the extended intensive supervision and surveillance programme. We shall also pilot the fostering requirement, which will be available to the courts as part of the supervision order. It will provide the courts with a new power to enable them to deal effectively with those serious and persistent young offenders whose home environment directly influences their offending behaviour. Young offenders will be placed with specially trained and recruited foster parents during the period of the requirement, and work will be undertaken with both the young people and their parents to address the problems within the home and to facilitate the eventual return there of the young person. The pilot will inform our decisions on national implementation. 
 I believe that the Committee is saying that we have to think about the balance between the caution that is required in rolling out such programmes and the need to get on and take action. I take that on board.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his comments. I still do not understand why there cannot be publication of at least an interim evaluation of the fixed penalty notices. We get references back from the individual police services where there are pilots but nothing is placed in the Library. It is not unreasonable to require a report, so that we can all be sure about what we are agreeing to. There have been examples of bad legislation in the past. Where there has been a pilot scheme, why not publish at least an interim evaluation before progressing? I will not press the amendments because there is not much point, but there are important points that we ask the Minister to take on board. We hope that, despite the great pressure to race on to younger children, there will be an opportunity to consult with some of the organisations.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I intend to be brief, not to make a major speech. Amendment No. 179 referred to the intensive fostering schemes, although I accept that that is not clear. I want to address those in greater detail in debate in relation to schedule 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - CURFEW ORDERS AND SUPERVISION ORDERS

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 204, in
schedule 2, page 50, leave out line 32.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 205, in 
schedule 2, page 50, line 38, leave out subparagraph (4).

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. These are probing amendments. I simply wanted the Minister to explain the significance, as the Government see it, of the omission of the night restrictions provisions. We have two identical amendments that seek to probe whether we need to omit the night restrictions provisions through paragraph 4(3)(a) and paragraph 4(4). Their effect is identical and I do not need to say any more other than that I would be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.

Bob Ainsworth: We want to remove the night restriction requirement that can be attached as part of a supervision order. That provision has become superfluous with the development of curfew orders. We believe that curfew orders are a more effective means of monitoring a young person's behaviour in the community. They provide greater flexibility for the courts, because specific times can be set for the curfew, depending upon the young person's offending behaviour and circumstances. The night restriction operated only between 6 pm and 6 am. A curfew order can be set for any period and last between two and 12 hours a day. That allows the court to set the period of the curfew at times when the young person is more at risk of getting into trouble.
 The night restriction requirement is only available for 30 days, whereas the changes that we are proposing on the curfew order will allow it to be available for six months for 10 to 17-year-old offenders. Therefore, the removal of the night restriction requirement will avoid confusion and encourage the courts, we believe, to use curfew orders in combination with other community sentences, such as the supervision order, as a more effective package of measures aimed at preventing further offending. I hope that that explanation is enough to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hawkins: It certainly is and it was useful to have that on the record. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 241, in
schedule 2, page 51, line 32, after 'authority', insert 
 'and the designated authority has concurred with the appropriateness of the requirement through its assessment of the needs of the child in accordance with the Children Act 1989'.

James Cran: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 242, in 
schedule 2, page 51, line 35, after 'months', insert 
 'During the period specified it will be at the discretion of the designated authority in consultation with the Youth Offending Team and relevant partners to determine what the leave arrangements for contact between the offender and his or her family will be, and to determine the programme of rehabilitation for the offender to return home within the specified periods.'.
 Amendment No. 243, in 
schedule 2, page 51, line 35, at end insert— 
 '( ) The offender made subject to a foster parent residence requirement will be deemed to be a child looked after by the local authority in accordance with the Children Act 1989 for the duration of that requirement.'.

Annette Brooke: I will preface my remarks with a few general comments, although they will not take up too much time. On the whole, I am enthusiastic about the schedule. As the Minister knows, I am keen on community sentences and the requirements of supervision orders, because they attempt to change behaviour in the community.
 The amendments deal with the intensive fostering proposals. The jury is out on the issue but the proposals may be one of the most enormous moves forward that this country could make. I say that because I recently visited Sweden and I was very impressed by the fact that children under 16 are not regarded as criminals but dealt with by the social services. It would be a great step forward if we were to take such an approach rather than putting young children in secure accommodation or even in prison. We all know that that is less than desirable, and this country has a big problem with children in adult prisons.

Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: Yes, but I want to get on to the amendments. I was just setting the scene.

Nick Hawkins: I will not detain the hon. Lady long. I, too, have visited Sweden. Does she agree that it is noticeable that those who administer the system undertake intensive intervention with young people, particularly those addicted to drugs? Although it does not take place in the prison system, some of it is not only intensive but coercive. Sweden's social services have a vastly better reputation than those in this country when it comes to dealing effectively with young people.

Annette Brooke: I agree. We must move social services care on a great deal, and the proposals before us are potentially a big beginning. I have been criticising everything all morning, so I am hoping that people will not mind if I say that the proposals have huge potential.
 None the less, there are reservations about the scheme. In some circumstances, it will be better to work with the child in the family setting. I was impressed by how much money there was in Sweden to support children in difficult family situations. There were many other measures, and we must study them if we are to change our emphasis and pursue rehabilitation. 
 As has been mentioned, there are major problems finding additional foster parents. There is a severe shortage of foster parents in my part of the world, and I am sure that everyone faces the same situation. 
 Training those foster parents will be vital. That is why, to tie in with what I said earlier, we would not slow things down by evaluating the pilot scheme. The issue is critical to how we proceed and to placing a greater emphasis on social services. We must get things right. We must constantly examine how the provisions are working. 
 The amendments were suggested by the Local Government Association. They are very sensible and are not intended to diminish the Bill in any way. Indeed, amendment No. 241 would add to the clause. The purpose is to ensure that the foster parent residence requirement does not undermine the fundamental principle that children should not be removed from their homes unless an assessment has determined that doing so would safeguard and promote their welfare. That is common sense. Indeed, the Bill makes it clear that removal would happen only under extreme circumstances, when the child would go to prison because of the offence, and the family home would not help to correct their behaviour. The amendment would pull in the local authorities to advise the courts to ensure that they got the decision right. 
 Amendment No. 242 is also from the Local Government Association. The intention is to tie the provisions together. It is argued that there needs to be a mechanism for the supervising authority to allow for home contact, both to support rehabilitation and to remain consistent with the Children Act 1989. Many people oppose the measure because, they say, it is draconian. I see it in the opposite light. It has huge potential. Although our treatment of children in prison is not necessarily consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998, it is important that this legislation should be fully compatible with the Children Act. 
 The process should extend to determining when rehabilitation is most likely to succeed on a full-time basis. That must be before the end of the requirement. Resettling is a difficult process. However, it is for a fixed period, so it must be carefully planned. The assessment would have to relate to the risk of reoffending. 
 The third amendment in the group is amendment No. 243. The offender made subject to a foster parent residence requirement would be deemed to be a child looked after by the local authority in accordance with the Children Act for the duration of the requirement. Notwithstanding that the requirement is, effectively, a criminal sentence, there should not be a change in the status of the child offender within the looked-after service, not least to ensure that the child offender's welfare is safeguarded in accordance with the Children Act at the same time as the offending behaviour is tackled. I hope that the Minister, if he does not accept the amendments, will take them in the spirit in which they are intended. I hope that the pilot scheme receives a good evaluation, and that there is a change in emphasis. This could be the beginning of a big change in the way in which we deal with children.

Nick Hawkins: I do not disagree as much with the Liberal Democrat amendments as I have on many occasions. I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, particularly in amendment No. 243. I shall listen
 with interest to the Minister's response to this group of amendments. I agree with the hon. Lady that the provisions can be very helpful. I was relieved that nobody moved the lead amendment in the previous group of amendments, which were an attempt by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre to fillet the whole provision. That would have been very unwise.

Bob Ainsworth: The amendments would unnecessarily state in the legislation that the requirement operates within the legislative framework of the Children Act; that local authorities and relevant partners may determine contact arrangements between young offenders and their families during the programme of rehabilitation; and that the young person should be a looked-after child for the duration of the requirement. The fostering requirement interacts with the legislative framework of the 1989 Act in order to ensure the young person's welfare, and it operates within the existing principles and provisions established by the 1989 Act.
 The imposition of the fostering requirement by the court would automatically lead to the young person's becoming a looked-after child within the meaning of the Children Act. The local authority where the young person resides would have responsibility for the fostering placement and the welfare of that young person as part of its obligations under the Children Act. 
 The measure is a child-focused intervention to deal with those persistent or serious young offenders whose home environment directly contributes to their offending behaviour. It would provide the courts with a specialised community-based response for such cases. Without such a measure, such young people are at risk of custody. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that there is substantial potential in that area. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.